Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Practising with restrictions — 18 months
The regulator’s term: conditions on practice
What does “practising with restrictions” mean?
Conditions of practice allow the practitioner to keep working but only subject to specific restrictions — for example, supervision, limits on certain procedures, or required reporting to the regulator.
Concerning Daniel Coventry, doctor (General Medical Council 7515747).
Decision date: 23 February 2026 · Hearing started 16 February 2026 and ended 23 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Daniel Coventry's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his February 2022 conviction at Brighton Magistrates' Court for failing to co-operate with a roadside breath test and failing to provide a specimen at the police station, after a collision on New Year's Day 2021. The tribunal directed conditions on his registration for 18 months, including supervision and notification requirements, with a review hearing before they expire. Other matters considered alongside the conviction were heard in private.
Charges
It was alleged, and admitted, that on 14 February 2022 at Brighton Magistrates' Court Dr Coventry was convicted of (a) failing without reasonable excuse, on 1 January 2021, to co-operate with a roadside breath test contrary to section 6(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and (b) failing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen for analysis at Brighton Custody Centre when suspected of having driven a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was disqualified from holding a driving licence for 12 months and ordered to pay fines of £346 and £519. The conviction followed a collision in which his vehicle ran into stationary traffic on 1 January 2021. Other matters considered alongside the conviction were heard in private and are redacted from the published version of the determination.
Findings
Dr Coventry made full admissions to the conviction allegation. The Tribunal found that the conviction engaged the statutory ground for impairment under section 35C(2)(c) of the Medical Act 1983 and that the seriousness of the conviction allegation lay at the lower end of the spectrum. It accepted that there had been no repetition over the more than five years since the events, that Dr Coventry had developed good insight, made full admissions, and had taken steps to remediate his personal circumstances. However, it concluded that a fully informed member of the public would be shocked if a finding of impairment were not made because his behaviour would undermine public confidence in the medical profession and proper professional standards. It determined that his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.